Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii, a challenge to the latest version of the Trump administration’s entry ban. Amy Howe has this blog’s analysis, which was first published at Howe on the Court. She reports that after over an hour of debate, “a majority of the court (and perhaps even a solid one) appeared ready to rule for the government and uphold the order in response to concerns about second-guessing the president on national-security issues.” Mark Walsh provides a “view” from the courtroom.

Early commentary on the argument comes from Ruthann Robson on the Constitutional Law Prof Blog and Michael Dorf on Dorf on Law, who writes that “Korematsu v. US is controlling in a way that benefits the plaintiffs.” “Ideally, the oral argument would have surfaced that point. I’m surfacing it now.”

In an op-ed at the Washington Post, Amanda Frost writes that “lurking in the background” of constitutional questions about the scope of presidential power over immigration “is an equally important question about the federal courts’ authority to check abuses of federal government power” through nationwide injunctions.

At Take Care, Justin Levitt connects today’s argument to yesterday’s argument in the Texas racial-gerrymandering cases, Abbott v. Perez, arguing that both of these cases have “ramifications far beyond the context of either case alone” – “the staying power of a discriminatory taint.”

And in an op-ed at the Los Angeles Times, Joshua Geltzer suggests that although the “nine justices who make up the court have different predilections,” “this case is something of a judicial buffet: There’s a rationale for overturning the ban that fits everyone’s taste.”

At In These Times, Shaun Richman weighs in on Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, in which the court will consider whether an Illinois law allowing public-sector advice to charge nonmembers for collective-bargaining activities violates the First Amendment; he suggests that “the possibility of other, unintended consequences” from a ruling against the union “is beginning to excite some union advocates and stir fear among conservative constitutional scholars.” Mic Dicta (the podcast) features a discussion of the case, which will be argued on February 26. At In a Crowded Theater, Erica Goldberg notes that the question of whether the court should overrule its prior precedent in the case, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, is complicated by the fact that “Abood is fairly incoherent,” and argues that “[e]ven if this current Court can distinguish between a union’s expenditures on collective bargaining and on political expression, it should not do so based on the murky logic of Abood.”

Briefly:

For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “Supreme Court precedents that have stood the test of time for generations are in danger of falling like dominoes in the next few months.”

For CNN, Ariane de Vogue reports that in an interview this weekend, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she “believes the ‘#MeToo’ movement will have ‘staying power’ and that she doesn’t worry about a serious backlash.”

At Reuters, Alison Frankel looks at the Department of Justice’s pending request that the Supreme Court review a lower-court order blocking the Trump administration’s attempt to unwind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program before the court of service ‘ argument has ruled on the case; she notes that “[i]t’s easy to forget, amid political furor about the future of the young adults whose parents brought say to this country illegally when they were children, just how extraordinary the DOJ petition is.”

At National Review, Margot Cleveland predicts that in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the court will decide whether the First Amendment bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding, “the Supreme Court seems ready to rule for [the baker] by accepting his argument for the free exercise of religion, but premised on a very narrow basis — that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated his right to free exercise of religion, by acting ‘with hostility’ toward his ‘religious beliefs,’ [an outcome that] would will nothing for religious liberty more broadly.”

At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro and Matthew Larosiere urge the justices to review and reverse a ruling from the U. S. Court of service ‘ argument from the 9th Circuit “that buying and selling guns [is] beyond the scope of the Second Amendment.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that “GOP Rep. Devin Nunes of Calif.., chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, may invite Chief Justice John Roberts to testify before the panel on alleged FISA abuses” in the wake of the committee’s recently released “the memo on the secret intelligence courts, which alleged the FBI sought authorization to surveil President Donald Trump’s campaign marine urination scandal on the basis of political or its research.” At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that Nunes’ suggestion “is drawing criticism and raising questions about the separation of powers.” Additional coverage comes from Katie Bo Williams at The Hill.

For the Los Angeles Times, David Savage reports that Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, in which the court will consider whether an Illinois law allowing public-sector advice to charge nonmembers for collective-bargaining activities violates the First Amendment, “threatens the financial foundation of public employee for advice in the 22 ‘blue’ states” and “is being closely watched for its potential to shift political power in the states and across the nation.” Mark Walsh reports for Education Week that “[j]udging by the tones of a joint press conference the four largest public-employee advice held last week [about the case], the labor movement is girding for an era in which they will no longer side be able to charge ‘agency fees’ to employees in a bargaining unit who refuse to join the union to cover those workers’ share of collective bargaining costs.” For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “the lead plaintiffs in four successive Supreme Court cases challenging the power of public employee for advice,” including Mark Janus, all “take pride in helping conservative groups reach a tipping point in their decade-long, anti-union campaign.”

Briefly:

At the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Elizabeth Slattery and Tiffany Bates “talk about the latest in SCOTUS fashion (an ‘Dissent’ handbag)[,] chat with Fix the Court’s Gabe Roth[,and] catch up on two voting-related cases from North Carolina and Pennsylvania.”

The National state protocol Center (video) hosted a panel discussion “commemorat[ing] the constitutional legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia two years after his death.”

At Bloomberg BNA, Jordan Rubin reports that President Donald Trump “appears to have kept his word” about appointing “a U. S. Supreme Court justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia,” because “[l]ike Scalia, a next generation internet initiative appointee who sometimes sided with the court’s Democrat appointees on criminal matters, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch has voiced support for criminal defendants’ rights but without voting to halt any executions.”

Counting to 5 (podcast) features a discussion of “the latest orders from the Court, and … a close look at the Gill v. Whitford, a case about the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering.”

For The New York Times, Adam Liptak goes on tour with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who “is set to make at least nine public appearances” “[i]n the space of three weeks.”

At SportsHandle, Ryan Rodenberg notes that in a “prediction market” run by a Washington, D. C., the company that allows participants to bet on the outcomes of Supreme Court cases, including Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a constitutional challenge to the federal ban on sports betting, “New Jersey is the favorite and the sports league quintet are heavy underdogs.”

At Justia’s Verdict blog, Vikram David Amar maintains that “[t] his week’s decision by Justice Samuel Alito … to leave undisturbed the congressional districting ruling last month by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court … is a helpful reminder of the importance of state courts and state constitutions in safeguarding American democracy.”

At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman tries to measure the impact of the litigants on the case outcomes by “tak[ing] a basic look at the relative amount of law shared between Court opinions and the parties’ merits briefs.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston reports that the Supreme Court refused on Tuesday to add a third partisan-gerrymandering case to this term’s docket, declining “to put on a fast track a case testing the constitutionality of a North Carolina congressional districting map that led in 2016 to victory for 10 Republicans and only three Democrats, despite only a slight GOP edge in voting totals statewide.” At Governing, Anne Blythe covers the Supreme Court’s partial grant on Tuesday of a request by North Carolina Republicans to block a decision by a three-judge federal court invalidating voting maps for the state’s General Assembly. At the Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen comments on both developments, arguing that “the primary lesson to learn from the Court’s refusal to expedite is that the Court continues to believe that voters can wait when it comes to curing redistricting,” and suggesting that “[t]he absence of Justice Gorsuch’s name in the second order is notable,” because it “shows he’s not moving in complete lockstep with Thomas and Alito on these issues.”

At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Marcia Coyle reports that “[a]s Congress and the White House quarrel over the fate of 690,000 so-called Dreamers, two veteran U.S. Supreme Court advocates are urging the justices to reject the Trump administration’s effort to get them involved now in the related legal fight.”

For the American Bar Association’s Human Rights Magazine, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy laments that if the court rules in Jesner v. Arab Bank that corporations are not liable under the Alien Tort Statute, we will have “corporations that are empowered to spend in American elections because of Bellotti and Citizens United; corporations that can make religious objections thanks to Hobby Lobby; and … corporations [that] will be able to aid and abet human rights violations abroad with impunity.”

At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro urges the justices to review a case that challenges the “use of cy pres” – the “diversion of settlement money from the victims to causes chosen by the lawyers in class action settlements” —as a violation of “the due process and free speech rights of class members.”

At the Biden Forum, Seema Nanda weighs in on Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, in which the court will consider whether an Illinois law allowing public-sector unions to charge nonmembers for collective-bargaining activities violates the First Amendment, arguing that “[p]ublic sector unions have been, and continue to be, a critical pathway to the middle class for women and people of color” and that “[a] Supreme Court ruling against unions in the Janus case would make it harder for millions of people to get ahead and stay ahead.”

At Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle recap some of the justices’ doings during their February break “and look ahead to the marquee case of U.S. v. Microsoft, set for argument February 27.”

At The Forward, Jane Eisner shares some “thoughts and observations” from her recent conversation with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Washington.

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

In yet another redistricting ruling, the Supreme Court yesterday partially granted a request by North Carolina Republicans to block a decision by a three-judge federal court invalidating voting maps for the state’s General Assembly. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. For The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “[t]he justices seemed to split into three camps.”

Coverage continues of Monday’s order denying requests by Pennsylvania Republican lawmakers and voters to put a hold on a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that struck down Pennsylvania’s congressional district lines and ordered lawmakers to draw new maps. At Governing, Jonathan Lai and Liz Navratil report that “[t]he maps will play a large role in whether Democrats can gain any ground in the House.” Additional coverage comes from Lyle Denniston at the state protocol Daily. At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie observes that “[i]t should not come as a shock that Justice Alito, who hears emergency requests from the federal circuit encompassing Pennsylvania, turned down Republicans’ demand to get involved in a state-law question over which the nation’s highest court has no jurisdiction.”

At E&E News, Amanda Reilly reports that “[t]he next big Supreme Court decision affecting the scope of the Clean Water Act may come from an unlikely source: a plaintiff’s fight to reduce a prison sentence for drug and weapons possession charges,” noting that “Hughes v. United States also centers on how lower courts special fractured Supreme Court decisions in which five of the court’s the nine justices fail to come to an agreement,” such as “Rapanos v. United States, an infamously murky 2006 decision on Clean Water Act jurisdiction.”

At the Pacific Legal Foundation’s blog, Deborah La Fetra urges the court to review a challenge to a Berkeley, California, “ordinance requiring all cell phone retailers to provide posters and other large documents warning against unsafe cell phone usage and including the city’s advice about ‘how to use your phone safely’”; she argues that “[s]o long as cell phone retailers comply with federal disclosure requirements, they have a First Amendment right to refrain from unwillingly parroting the government’s user speech.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

Yesterday Justice Samuel Alito denied requests by Pennsylvania Republican lawmakers and voters to put a hold on a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that struck down Pennsylvania’s congressional district lines as a partisan gerrymander in violation of the state the state protocol and ordered lawmakers to draw new maps. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. For The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “[t]he Supreme Court’s order was be expected, as the Pennsylvania court had based its decision solely on the state the state protocol,” and “[o]n matters of state law, the judgments of state supreme courts are typically final.” Additional coverage comes from Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Ariane de Vogue and Eric Bradner at CNN, Alex Swoyer for The Washington Times, Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Joseph Ax at Reuters, Lydia Wheeler and others at The Hill, Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed News, Sam Levine at HuffPost, and Brent Kendall for The Wall Street Journal, who reports that “[n]ew boundary lines could provide Democrats with more winnable districts in Pennsylvania.” Commentary comes from Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress. For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “[t]he high court’s greater impact could come in the next few months with rulings on partisan maps drawn by Republicans in Wisconsin and Democrats in Maryland.”

At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro and Aaron Barnes urge the court to review a Fourth Amendment challenge to several “’pen/prune’ orders authorizing law enforcement to collect IP … addresses for any internet traffic going to or from [a suspect’s] wireless router and other electronic devices,” “under a statutory ‘relevance’ standard that falls well short of the Fourth Amendment’s requirement for probable cause,” and to “firmly establish that the internet doesn’t constitute some sort of state protocol-free zone.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

Contact us at: Westlake Legal Group Your Northern Virginia Full Service Law Firm. Call (703) 406-7616 or click here for our website: https://westlakelegal.com/

We aim to lead in each practice and area of law we work in. Coming from in-depth understanding of the law and the industry, capitalizing on extensive experience, we provide hands-on advice that speaks the language of our client’s business and/or legal issue.